I heard about TecCrunch from a co-worker.  I don't consider myself a true 'techie' more like a dabbler, or someone willing to try to solve a problem before calling someone in knowing more than I do.  (Hopefully without making the problem worse for the person trying to solve it.)

TechCrunch has its own streaming TV with a program called 'Keen On' tackling business and technology issues.  This week's episode has someone dubbed the 'Guru of Customer Service' named John Tschohl (pronounced tish-hole).  I didn't know the guy was a guru, but working in retail taught me a lot about serving people and it's translated into library work.  The segment talked about Netflix's bungling on splitting its service (bad idea and luckily didn't happen here in Canada) and continuing to bungle with their public relations.  I subscribe to Netflix and a real-live person helped me deal with a problem with my Microsoft Silverlight, after I tried to solve the problem on my own.  I do wince at the articles on the CEO and his inability to admit the Qwickster experiment failed and he's alienated a whole host of people.  Have a look at the video below:



I haven't heard about this guy, but his argument made me look him up.  He's given workshops around the world, including Target and Zellers.  (Obviously before any merger took place.)  He said companies assume they are in the 'banking business' or the 'airline business', but do not look at themselves as providing a customer experience.  Libraries sometimes look at themselves as providing information literacy, research skills, and access while assuming people naturally provide good service to a user.  (From now on I write 'user' or 'library user' as opposed to the traditional term 'patron'.  It's really the same thing and I simply want to pick one term.)  I don't think it's good to assume service just happens naturally with the information at a reference desk. Sometimes even the best librarian, or library tech, have to ask themselves if the service they provide was enough to:

1. Enable the user to come back again with another question, or if they need clarification.
2. The service is enough to answer the question, or enable the user to flex the newly taught skill.

I ask myself that question a lot as a Library Tech dealing with people.  If I catalogued, I would still have to consider the user experience although contact is limited.  I still serve the user if I deal with people or not.  A large part of what I do, and it's one of my strengths, is putting people at ease.  Why?  People feel uncomfortable and more than a few times label themselves as stupid for not knowing something.  (I heard that label said by students young and old.  It still breaks my heart.)  Other times I have to work hard to gain someone's trust if their last experience in a library made them feel humiliated and stupid.  I put a person at ease because at one time I was that person.  I met some brilliant library folk not very adept at dealing with people.  As an information hound, I need the access and I will slay dragons to get at what I want.  Another person would simply give up and sometimes blame themselves.

People may think John  Tschoh's pronouncement on Netflix sounds harsh, but they, and libraries, deal in customer experience.  Nobody can be a service superhero, just deal with the user as they are during their particular moment.  After getting stuck with this cold, I feel anxious to go back to work and really practice remaining present to my user and impart a good experience.

Colds, Timelords, and Spooks' Last Hurrah

So much for writing an entry every day

I got the great-Canadian, common cold.  I manged to drag myself into work  the last couple of days, but fever and chills knocked me down with the one-two punch.  I even opened my windows to cool down a little bit.  I want to sleep, but I don't feel like sleeping.  I figure try to hold on until later and knock off in the early evening.

Between guzzling orange juice and Tylenol Colds and Sinus, I laid on my couch to catch some stuff on Netflix.  I actually watched an episode of Dr. Who with Tom Baker as the forth doctor.  This was the 'gateway' doctor into the whole universe.  The way people speak about David Tennant, or Matt Smith, is the way people speak about Tom Baker's run as The Doctor.  I watched the episodes making up The Ark in Space, featuring the late Elizabeth Sladen as Sarah Jane Smith.  Yes, the effects seem corny and there are guys in bug suits, but I felt like a kid again with the suspense in the episode.  Plus I can now watch the thing without the PBS pledge drive breaks.  (Something that  happened often watching Doctor Who as a kid.  One hour long episodes took me about twice that and into the wee hours.  Still worth it.)  Here's a funny piece of irony--Netflix recommended the classic Who episodes based on putting Firefly on my viewing list.

Does The Doctor and Malcolm Reynolds have something in common besides played by guys I go fan girly over?  I feel too congested to figure that one out. (By the way the Doctor I do fan girl over is David Tennant.)

I checked out my TV and Netflix and feel like watching nothing.  To make up for not writing yesterday, I will write plenty.

Let's start with the last episode of Spooks (MI-5 to us North American lot).  I mean the last one.  Ever.

Obligatory spoiler alert: If you haven't seen it and don't want to get spoiled, then don't read any further.  If you read any further and still complain then I have to wonder what's up with you.

I knew Tom Quinn would return courtesy of Anglophenia, my favourite go-to blog for British shows.  The news just confirmed a sneaking suspicion someone from the earlier season, you know not dead, would somehow come back in some capacity to help Harry out.  It figures Tom Quinn (Matthew MacFadyen) would come back.  Tom gave Ruth a second chance after finding out she was sent to spy on Section D on behalf of GCHQ.  In turn, Ruth remained fiercely loyal after he left.  Harry may have decommissioned Tom, but it doesn't mean he left the spy game for good.  I figuregoing into private security means you have a little more control over your conscious.  (When I say little, I mean 'very little, this is the spy game after all.)


I can imagine Harry thought of Tom first and foremost to get close to the Russian leader responsible for Ruth's death.  As we learned from Adam's death and the shooting of Arkardy Katchimov (still the coolest spy name on TV in my books), hurt someone close to Harry and you pay the price.  In the case of Ruth Evershead, it was closer than any section chief.  Although the cameo was a microsecond, Tom strolled to the gate soon after the Home Secretary mentioned Harry would 'call in an outside agency' to do in the operative who set the events of Season 10 in motion.  I imagine the conversation would do something like 'Ruth's dead' and Tom asking who and where to do the deed.  It was heard to watch the end of a series many of us just started watching thanks to Netflix or DVD marathoning, but the ending salvaged an uneven season in the final series.

Going up against Downton Abbey didn't help either.


However it's still a fun series to watch since we know the plots are outlandish.  Do people watch 24 for realism?  (Although the torture scenes are a little too true for comfort.)  The show exhibited some gallows humour the 24 writers should take a lesson or two, and featured some tortured heroics by a trio of very fine-looking gentleman.  (Sorry Dimitri even if they gave you 10 episodes you had some big Lucas-North-sized shoes to fill, plot twist not withstanding.)  A tip of the hat to Spooks aka MI-5, you will live on in reruns, Netflix, and streaming sites.

Writing About Being Single Without the Self Pity

I joined a singles on August.  Rather than try online, or a dating agency, I decided to join for the activities  they offered.  The group, remaining nameless out of respect for the its success stories, offer many dances among the many activities on the calendar.  I finally went to one last weekend.  Now,  I knew finding a boyfriend at my age will prove very hard.  'Very hard' is an underestimate, try next to a miracle if I meet a guy who is funny, attractive, and self-sufficient.  Of course one book in particular would tsk tsk my expectations.

A little while ago, I read a book entitled Marry Him by Lori Gottlieb detailing how a woman's unreasonable expectations made her single rather than married.  She even offered up her own story as a cautionary tale after choosing to have a child on her own, then discovering dating can be REALLY hard after such an event.  She details her own history and attempts at dating using various methods.  My favourite is the dating coach talking about dating as a 'numbers game' and urging her to find a guy way older than herself since men her age have the option to go younger.  While she wrote about her experiences and details the stories of many  other women, I kept waiting for her to question those assumptions.  Ms.  Gottlieb ignored a man's own expectations and seems to think women act a bit more choosier in the dating department.

I nearly wanted to blow my top off over the idea.  Somewhere the dating book detailing how both genders are equally stupid many never get written.  So, the idea one must feel comfortable with oneself, and don't look since love will find you, looks like a load of crap.  Men don't want 'fat' women yet the definition varies from guy to guy.  Women claim they want to socialize more, but really they join these singles group to look for a guy.  It's the reason I joined and I better not bullshit on this one.

Hmm, I can hearing someone thinking, no self-pity but an awful lot of anger.   I have read dating book after dating book, trying some of the tips they suggested.  I will try something with a better than average chance of not working:  Trust myself.  I will trust things will work out even without a boyfriend, I will trust the woman I am with all its quirks, flaws, and great qualities.  (Trust me, it took a really, really long time to get to that point.)  Yes, this singles game is a number's game and looks like it's in favour of the guys.  I will play the game by not playing the game.  I will simply go out and have a good time.  It's all I can do at this point in my life.

Just Do It

I keep coming back time after time, usually to a writer's block looking a large cube of ice.  Since my last post, I enrolled myself into a creative writing class.  My goal is not to get published and make lots of money.  My goal has turned into simply moving forward beyond the fear.

Someone once said, I don't remember who, if someone gets mad about what you wrote then something has gone right.  However, we all want to be in Willy Loman terms 'well liked'.  If I remember correctly it didn't get Willy anywhere either in Death of a Salesman.  I decided for the last week of October to simply do a blog entry a day.  The title is Life, Libraries and Everything in Between and I better make good on the title.

Right now I just had breakfast and watched Strike Force on Project Free TV.  No, it's not the latest season with the two new leads, but the first season with the one lead and a host of other semi-known UK actors.  The first season stars Richard Armitage as John Porter, but we also have Shelly Conn and Andrew Lincoln, before they all moved onto other things.  Mr. Armitage, as people already, know is filming The Hobbit.  Shelly Conn stars in Terra Nova, while Andrew Lincoln plays a sheriff-turned-zombie-fighter in The Wallking Dead.  

I saw the revamped series with the two new guys and noticed a wee bit of a difference between this one and the previous series.  In many interviews, Richard Armitage mentioned he felt a little leery taking the role if it was another 'boys and guns' show.  I did see some plot and character in between people and things going BOOM! Now we had a major cast turn over and the show is now on Cinemax, or HBO Canada.  The show decided to start from square one and definitely aware of its American audience.  Now it's the boys-and-guns show with a little bit of t & a thrown in for good measure.  Plus our English hero is now a proper bloke with a family to go with the reckless, ex-special forces  guy from the States.  (Yeah, no stereotyping in those two characters alright.) Come to think of it, the wee bit of a difference looks pretty big to me.

Now I am not a network exec and I acknowledge my bias for Richard Armitage.  (I don't belong to the Armitage Army, or any of those groups.  I guess that makes me a lone gun woman of sorts.  I just prefer my fan-girl devotion to remain semi-private.) If I took a cold-hard, objective look at the whole thing I would wind down the the series then play season one as kind of a prequel series the same way as Spartacus: God of the Arena filled in between seasons.  (Sadly due to the illness of its star Andy Whitfield.  Even more sad we will never get to see what else he can do outside that character.)  Now, when would I do my little prequel?  Again if I were an exec, and I acknowledge I am not, I would do it sometime in 2012 around the time The Hobbit gets released.  We have two faces people already met and thanks to Peter Jackson we  will have a third.  No need to film, just plop it into the schedule then off it goes until the new season.  It's a way to tell North American audiences Look!  The Brits can do a little more than period dramas.

It's silly I know.  I just wanted a little silliness to go with breakfast.  Now, if you would excuse me, I have a home to clean.